Non-Lasix Users Get Weight Break In The Pegasus

[Jeff P]

Maybe they were reading this thread?



-jp

.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

The constant for the horse is subject to its current condition on race day.

It's the max output in foot-pounds of torque the horse is capable of delivering to its hooves when the rider asks for its best at key points during the running of the race.

Yes, it's true that unlike a pickup truck:

A horse's max output might not be known beforehand on race day.

And a horse's max output varies from one race to the next based on its current condition.

But that does not mean the laws of physics do not apply to horses!

Let's revisit the pickup truck example --

I can buy a 2019 Ford F150 4x4 pickup truck that has an 8 foot bed, a curb weight of 5016 lbs, a high output Eco Boost V6 engine that generates 450 horsepower, and a drive train that delivers 510 foot-pounds of torque at the rear wheels.

If were to buy that truck and do custom work on it to get the curb weight down 3% to 4866 lbs:

The engine would still generate the same 450 horsepower, the drive train would still deliver the same 510 foot-pounds of torque at the rear wheels and THE TRUCK WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCELERATE FASTER BECAUSE IT IS LIGHTER.

Likewise, if you reduce the weight of a horse by 3% (whether through Lasix or some other means) while doing nothing to impair the capabilities of its engine, drive train, muscle mass, and energy reserves:

No matter what its max output happens to be on race day because of its current condition:

A HORSE THAT IS 3% LIGHTER WILL BE ABLE TO ACCELERATE FASTER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD IF IT WERE 3% HEAVIER.

Does that make sense?


-jp

.

I don't disagree with that in a general philosophy at all. the problem is a horses physical condition, output ability, or whatever you want to describe it as, varies so much from day to day let alone from race to race that the 3% really doesn't mean much in the overall scope of things. To try and explain it like the pickup scenario, that pickup could make a dozen drag runs and won't put down the exact times each time. Even if it was computer controlled to take the human element out. Why? because the temperature, humidity, fuel temperature and tire traction will vary each and every time that truck makes a run. Even though that truck can put out 450HP doesn't mean it will make that every time it's stuck on a dyno or every time regardless the atmospheric conditions. This is why when caterpillar (I was a Cat mechanic for quite a few years) rates it's engine HP it actually issues the air temp, humidity, fuel temp, elevation etc. for every motor it tests because things can vary quite a bit when conditions vary.



But my whole question in all of this is this. If virtually every horse uses lasix now what difference does it really make? It's no longer a handicapping issue I wouldn't think. It's like Bute. It's a non factor. Now when you get into substances like Banamine and what all others that are legal now that's a different story. When I ran in KY in the 80's banamine was legal. I didn't use it. Not right for the horse and not fair to the jockey. If you need banamine to run a horse he shouldn't be running. That's just my opinion.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by chadk66

But my whole question in all of this is this. If virtually every horse uses lasix now what difference does it really make? It's no longer a handicapping issue I wouldn't think. It's like Bute. It's a non factor. Now when you get into substances like Banamine and what all others that are legal now that's a different story. When I ran in KY in the 80's banamine was legal. I didn't use it. Not right for the horse and not fair to the jockey. If you need banamine to run a horse he shouldn't be running. That's just my opinion.

1. The WADA says it is a masking agent.
2. There's no necessary reason it can't have different effects on different horses.
3. It's a performance enhancer, and in general performance enhancers should be banned.
4. It can't be good for horses to run them dehydrated.
5. It encourages the debasement of the breed through the breeding of habitual bleeders.
6. It makes the sport look terrible, because non-fans just look at us doping all the horses and it looks terrible and makes PETA's arguments.

[chadk66]

your certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. The WADA says it is a masking agent.
2. There's no necessary reason it can't have different effects on different horses.
3. It's a performance enhancer, and in general performance enhancers should be banned.
4. It can't be good for horses to run them dehydrated.
5. It encourages the debasement of the breed through the breeding of habitual bleeders.
6. It makes the sport look terrible, because non-fans just look at us doping all the horses and it looks terrible and makes PETA's arguments.

I stopped at #1.

You DO realize humans aren’t horses, right?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by chadk66

But my whole question in all of this is this. If virtually every horse uses lasix now what difference does it really make? It's no longer a handicapping issue I wouldn't think. It's like Bute. It's a non factor. Now when you get into substances like Banamine and what all others that are legal now that's a different story. When I ran in KY in the 80's banamine was legal. I didn't use it. Not right for the horse and not fair to the jockey. If you need banamine to run a horse he shouldn't be running. That's just my opinion.

That's the bigger question isn't it?

I'm against Lasix for a number of reasons.

My personal opinion is there's something inherently wrong with the idea that 95% of all thoroughbreds need to be treated with a diuretic before they can step into a starting gate.

In my opinion, if a horse needs a diuretic in order to race: it shouldn't be racing in the first place. And we certainly shouldn't be breeding horses that need to be treated with diuretics so they can race.

Before anyone jumps down my throat for having that opinion, consider how horse racing came to be.

You had a farm. I had a farm. One of us said to the other "I think my horse is faster than yours." To which the other smiled and said "Oh yeah? Prove it. Methinks you are wrong."

There was probably a fair in the spring. People came from near and far. Among other things, horse racing was involved. And and one of us proved it. We shared food, drink, laughter, and music. Just about everybody had a great time. I'm guessing that's why we did it year after year.

But over the years those simple beginnings have somehow morphed into this convoluted monstrosity where "proving it" has now come to mean bending the rules behind the curtain, taking an edge when no one is looking, and spending thousands a year on substances and treatments the public will never be privy to.

Chad, even though you and I might disagree on Lasix: I know from reading your many posts that the 'convoluted monstrosity' I just described is a big part of the reason you decided to retire from training.

You should know I am saddened by that. Because the continued loss of independent operators like yourself is one of the reasons the 'convoluted monstrosity' keeps growing in the first place.

One of the things the public is privy to is that 95% of all thoroughbreds who stepped into a starting gate last year were really only able to do so because they were treated with Lasix.

As Robert posted in post #117, you pretty much have to these days. It's what you do if you want a chance at purse money. Truth be told if you want a real chance at purse money these days you probably have to do a lot more than just give your horse Lasix. And no, what I'm talking about doesn't include outright cheating. But on other hand, what I'm talking about is the furthest thing in the world from the days when you looked over the fence, smiled, and told your neighbor "I think my horse is faster than yours."

So yeah, I have a strong dislike for the convoluted monstrosity end of things.

In my mind, Lasix is front and center when it comes to the convoluted monstrosity. It's the first thing you see when you start peeling back layers of the onion.

According to stats on the Jockey Club website, up until about 1960 thoroughbreds in North America were averaging more than 11 starts per year.

Since 2010, thoroughbreds in North America have barely averaged 6 starts per year.

Link here:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.as...ion=FB&area=10

If you look at the red line on the graph at the top of the page at the above link, you can see it begins dropping precipitously between 1975 and 1980.

Anyone care to guess what changes were front and center in North American thoroughbred racing about then?

Q. Do I know for a fact that Lasix is the primary contributing factor behind the number of starts per year being cut almost in half.

A. No.


Q. Do I think Lasix is probably one of the factors that contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?

A. Yes. For me, the timing is way too coincidental.


Q. Do I think the effects of Lasix on race day, loss of water weight, being faster than they otherwise would be, etc. contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?

A. No. Not directly.

But I do think the introduction of Lasix changed the game in a fundamental way and helps feed the convoluted monstrosity I wrote about above.

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix enabled horses who were bleeders to compete on a more than level playing field.

Some of them won black type races and made names for themselves. Keep in mind I'm talking about races these horses realistically could not have entered in the first place were it not for Lasix.

Some of these horses made their way to the breeding shed after they were retired.

And the trait called bleeding?

Prior to the introduction of Lasix: The breeding industry had a built in safeguard to keep bleeding out of the gene pool.

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect bleeders seldom won black type races and therefore seldom made it to the breeding shed.

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix changed that.



This next part is my own opinion based on personal observation only. I need to make that clear before I go on.

In my opinion, after we started sending bleeders to the breeding shed one of the unintended consequences could be that we aren't just breeding an increased propensity to bleed.

Humor me --

In my opinion, it took a few generations to manifest itself.

In my opinion, it was subtle at first.

But it's become a trend that grows incrementally worse with each passing year.

In my opinion, if you follow thoroughbred racing in a serious way, things have gotten to the point where you almost have to be living under a rock not to see it:

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix may well have led to an era where the thoroughbred of today is made of glass compared to the thoroughbred of yesteryear.

I say that based on:

• The number of three year olds I see disappear from the Triple Crown trail never to be seen again - let alone make it to the races at the age of four.
  
  
• The fact that the average thoroughbred barely makes 6 starts per year.

In my opinion I don't think we have ever produced a more fragile thoroughbred at any time in recent history than we are producing today. I don't think this is something that's even up for debate.

The question is why? And what changes can we make to reverse the trend?

I see the introduction of Lasix as a possible contributing factor - because it changed the selection process for the stallions we send to the breeding shed.

You asked for my opinion.

I'm just a horseplayer. I don't have a hidden agenda. I don't work for WADA or USADA or a breeding farm located overseas where they don't allow Lasix or anything like that.

Hopefully I've been able to articulate some of my reasons for being against Lasix.




-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I stopped at #1.

You DO realize humans aren’t horses, right?

Yes. You do realize drug testing organizations are full of honest people who want drugs out of sports, and our sport is full of competituve gamblers who want to pull off betting coups, sell unfit horses, and who generally have a terrible reputation for honesty?

I trust WADA.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

That's the bigger question isn't it?

I'm against Lasix for a number of reasons.

My personal opinion is there's something inherently wrong with the idea that 95% of all thoroughbreds need to be treated with a diuretic before they can step into a starting gate.

In my opinion, if a horse needs a diuretic in order to race: it shouldn't be racing in the first place. And we certainly shouldn't be breeding horses that need to be treated with diuretics so they can race.

Before anyone jumps down my throat for having that opinion, consider how horse racing came to be.

You had a farm. I had a farm. One of us said to the other "I think my horse is faster than yours." To which the other smiled and said "Oh yeah? Prove it. Methinks you are wrong."

There was probably a fair in the spring. People came from near and far. Among other things, horse racing was involved. And and one of us proved it. We shared food, drink, laughter, and music. Just about everybody had a great time. I'm guessing that's why we did it year after year.

But over the years those simple beginnings have somehow morphed into this convoluted monstrosity where "proving it" has now come to mean bending the rules behind the curtain, taking an edge when no one is looking, and spending thousands a year on substances and treatments the public will never be privy to.

Chad, even though you and I might disagree on Lasix: I know from reading your many posts that the 'convoluted monstrosity' I just described is a big part of the reason you decided to retire from training.

You should know I am saddened by that. Because the continued loss of independent operators like yourself is one of the reasons the 'convoluted monstrosity' keeps growing in the first place.

One of the things the public is privy to is that 95% of all thoroughbreds who stepped into a starting gate last year were really only able to do so because they were treated with Lasix.

As Robert posted in post #117, you pretty much have to these days. It's what you do if you want a chance at purse money. Truth be told if you want a real chance at purse money these days you probably have to do a lot more than just give your horse Lasix. And no, what I'm talking about doesn't include outright cheating. But on other hand, what I'm talking about is the furthest thing in the world from the days when you looked over the fence, smiled, and told your neighbor "I think my horse is faster than yours."

So yeah, I have a strong dislike for the convoluted monstrosity end of things.

In my mind, Lasix is front and center when it comes to the convoluted monstrosity. It's the first thing you see when you start peeling back layers of the onion.

According to stats on the Jockey Club website, up until about 1960 thoroughbreds in North America were averaging more than 11 starts per year.

Since 2010, thoroughbreds in North America have barely averaged 6 starts per year.

Link here:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.as...ion=FB&area=10

If you look at the red line on the graph at the top of the page at the above link, you can see it begins dropping precipitously between 1975 and 1980.

Anyone care to guess what changes were front and center in North American thoroughbred racing about then?

Q. Do I know for a fact that Lasix is the primary contributing factor behind the number of starts per year being cut almost in half.

A. No.


Q. Do I think Lasix is probably one of the factors that contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?

A. Yes. For me, the timing is way too coincidental.


Q. Do I think the effects of Lasix on race day, loss of water weight, being faster than they otherwise would be, etc. contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?

A. No. Not directly.

But I do think the introduction of Lasix changed the game in a fundamental way and helps feed the convoluted monstrosity I wrote about above.

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix enabled horses who were bleeders to compete on a more than level playing field.

Some of them won black type races and made names for themselves. Keep in mind I'm talking about races these horses realistically could not have entered in the first place were it not for Lasix.

Some of these horses made their way to the breeding shed after they were retired.

And the trait called bleeding?

Prior to the introduction of Lasix: The breeding industry had a built in safeguard to keep bleeding out of the gene pool.

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect bleeders seldom won black type races and therefore seldom made it to the breeding shed.

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix changed that.



This next part is my own opinion based on personal observation only. I need to make that clear before I go on.

In my opinion, after we started sending bleeders to the breeding shed one of the unintended consequences could be that we aren't just breeding an increased propensity to bleed.

Humor me --

In my opinion, it took a few generations to manifest itself.

In my opinion, it was subtle at first.

But it's become a trend that grows incrementally worse with each passing year.

In my opinion, if you follow thoroughbred racing in a serious way, things have gotten to the point where you almost have to be living under a rock not to see it:

In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix may well have led to an era where the thoroughbred of today is made of glass compared to the thoroughbred of yesteryear.

I say that based on:

• The number of three year olds I see disappear from the Triple Crown trail never to be seen again - let alone make it to the races at the age of four.
• The fact that the average thoroughbred barely makes 6 starts per year.

In my opinion I don't think we have ever produced a more fragile thoroughbred at any time in recent history than we are producing today. I don't think this is something that's even up for debate.

The question is why? And what changes can we make to reverse the trend?

I see the introduction of Lasix as a possible contributing factor - because it changed the selection process for the stallions we send to the breeding shed.

You asked for my opinion.

I'm just a horseplayer. I don't have a hidden agenda. I don't work for WADA or USADA or a breeding farm located overseas where they don't allow Lasix or anything like that.

Hopefully I've been able to articulate some of my reasons for being against Lasix.




-jp

.

wow great write up. and thanks for the kind words. I'd say I agree with at least 90% of this. You know it's really interesting looking back on all this. Here are some things I pondered while reading your post. One of the first things that popped into my mind was what would happen to the sport if they outlawed lasix today. My thought is it would probably collapse due to the small population of thoroughbreds now compared to years past. No one really knows anymore how many horses are actual bleeders because 99% are treated with lasix so you only know which ones bleed through lasix.



Up until scopes were invented, the only way to know if a horse was bleeding was if it actually bled visibly out it's nostrils. How much of that went on prior to the scope I have no idea. Not sure if anybody does. But obviously they must have because someone invented a scope to investigate this bleeding otherwise it wouldn't have been invented. Same goes with lasix. Although I think lasix was invented for people first and it spilled over into the equine world.



The breeding issue is also very interesting and quite frankly an unknown. Is bleeding something that can be passed on genetically? I have no idea. I would suspect it probably is because most any trait in an animal can be passed on.



I would like to agree with you on if a horse needs a diuretic to race he doesn't belong in the gate. Best case scenario that would be an ideal thing. But we both know that isn't even a possibility given the investment made in horses and it's actually something that can be controlled, so no way will you ever get horse owners to go along with that. So I don't put much thought into something that is an absolute impossibility.



Like I've said many times I'm against Lasix myself. That being said I'm also smart enough to realize that if I wanted to stay in business I would have to use it because if I didn't that horse was just going to be led into the next barn and run on lasix anyway. Even though I'm against using it I do realize, due to my experience with it, that lasix does virtually no harm to a horse. There are humans that use it on a daily basis and do just fine with it. Of all the things one could give to a horse it's easily the least harmful in my opinion. Especially now days when they get such a small dose maybe every three weeks.



In regards to the frequency of running a horse, I'm actually stumped on that one. But I can tell you with honesty and from experience it has nothing to do with Lasix. My lasix horses ran as often if not more frequently than my non lasix horses with zero difference in their health of any kind. My horses all ran every 10-14 days unless I flat couldn't get them in a race due to too few entries. I actually went through many of my horses race records and was amazed at how frequently they ran. I had some that ran 20-25 races in a year. And I arguably had as healthy of horses in the whole barn area. I cannot tell you what caused this current belief that horses need three weeks between races. Here is what I suspect has caused that vs when I trained. First purses are three two to four times higher now. So one doesn't have to run as often just to pay the bills. Second I think owners have become too much of an arm chair quarterback and don't listen to trainers. That's maybe good in some instances and bad in some. Another reason is the lack of horses/entries. Often times it takes many entries before a race goes. So it easily takes three weeks before a certain race can fill again. I would gladly supply some horse names from my days so you could research this. It's amazing how often I ran them compared to now. But that was the way things were back in the day. This phenomenon really puzzles me.



It's a very interesting topic. A few years ago my brother had a first time starting two year old. He mentioned running it on lasix. I asked him why the hell he would do that, the horse hasn't shown you he needed lasix. He really stumbled on that question and then just finally said he would be at a disadvantage. I knew right then it wasn't a discussion I should have with a brother lol. The mindset on it is so convoluted. In regards to the breeding issue, that is totally water under the bridge at this point. That is something that would never be given the light of day. So cleaning up the genetic pool of bleeders is a non starter unfortunately.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yes. You do realize drug testing organizations are full of honest people who want drugs out of sports, and our sport is full of competituve gamblers who want to pull off betting coups, sell unfit horses, and who generally have a terrible reputation for honesty?

I trust WADA.

You quoted WADA as saying Lasix is a masking agent. Their expertise is humans, and human sports, not horses and horse racing.

It isn’t debatable as to whether Lasix is a masking agent. It is proven to NOT be a masking agent if given in a specific dosage within a specific timeframe. Unless a track isn’t requiring the specifics that ensure it’s not masking, then that argument needs to be tossed.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You quoted WADA as saying Lasix is a masking agent. Their expertise is humans, and human sports, not horses and horse racing.

It isn’t debatable as to whether Lasix is a masking agent. It is proven to NOT be a masking agent if given in a specific dosage within a specific timeframe. Unless a track isn’t requiring the specifics that ensure it’s not masking, then that argument needs to be tossed.

this is true. If lasix is given at least four hours out, which I'm quite certain is the case at all tracks, then it won't mask. Thus the reason for the four hour rule. Any rules governing body can instill whatever rules they want and back it up or not with scientific research. I'm not sure what WADA says about lasix given at least four hours out of competition. My only experience or knowledge of WADA is their work in pro motocross. And from the issues I've read about there is some concern with WADA and their testing. I don't recall the specifics offhand but I do understand there are some concerns. And it won't surprise me if they get rid of them in that sport. They use WADA for the indoor supercross series because it's managed by the FIM which is a european based company. Europe is all WADA. But they don't use WADA for the pro motocross outdoor racing series due to some of the issues the supercross series experienced.

[Fager Fan]

It’s frustrating to me. Nine more pages of wasted breath on Lasix. Does anyone really think Lasix is the biggest drug issue in racing? So why can’t we give the real drug issues even a quarter of our time?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

It’s frustrating to me. Nine more pages of wasted breath on Lasix. Does anyone really think Lasix is the biggest drug issue in racing? So why can’t we give the real drug issues even a quarter of our time?

I think it is, because if we banned it, suddenly a lot of the stuff it is masking would get detected.

I actually think Congress should just ban it outright on any racehorse in training and require tracks to test and disqualify. See what happens.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Hell some humans use it on a daily basis. A horse gets 20cc's day of the race which now days is every three weeks if they're lucky lol.

There can be NO analogy comparing IV Lasix administration in horses to oral Lasix usage in humans. This is exactly what the president of the HBPA did when speaking before congress, I believe by mentioning he took lasix. It's a ridiculous analogy because there is no comparing oral lasix with IV Lasix in any species.

IV Lasix in humans, and in horses, kicks in nearly immediately. The effect of oral Lasix in humans is much, much more slow of a process.

I can tell you this from personal experience, having received IV Lasix a few times when undergoing chemotherapy. The experience is one of the worst I have ever had, akin to someone reaching into my body and squeezing both kidney's as hard as possible for up to 45 minutes. In my opinion, the feeling ranks just behind kidney stones (which I've also had).


We can discuss all day whether horses feel discomfort like people do. Some people have told me they do, some have told me they don't where IV Lasix administration is concerned. I just don't know, but when someone says Lasix is no big deal because people take it, I have to jump in.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

There can be NO analogy comparing IV Lasix administration in horses to oral Lasix usage in humans. This is exactly what the president of the HBPA did when speaking before congress, I believe by mentioning he took lasix. It's a ridiculous analogy because there is no comparing oral lasix with IV Lasix in any species.

IV Lasix in humans, and in horses, kicks in nearly immediately. The effect of oral Lasix in humans is much, much more slow of a process.

I can tell you this from personal experience, having received IV Lasix a few times when undergoing chemotherapy. The experience is one of the worst I have ever had, akin to someone reaching into my body and squeezing both kidney's as hard as possible for up to 45 minutes. In my opinion, the feeling ranks just behind kidney stones (which I've also had).


We can discuss all day whether horses feel discomfort like people do. Some people have told me they do, some have told me they don't where IV Lasix administration is concerned. I just don't know, but when someone says Lasix is no big deal because people take it, I have to jump in.

according to my sister whom is an NP in oncology, your experience with IV lasix is far from the norm. The end result is the same, you shed water. Horses feel pain in the majority of their bodies just like humans do. Anybody that says they don't knows absolutely nothing about a horse. Just because someone is the head of the HBPA doesn't mean they know which end of the horse takes a shit. It's very easy to tell that horses feel no discomfort from it. Internal digestive and urethral pain or discomfort in horses is one of the easiest things to detect.

[Tom]

Well I would believe your sister over the head of the HPBA and doctors any day!